1.0.2 - Any hope left for SSTOs?

[GoSlash27]

Hey now, I design my SSTOs to look like proper planes too... But I have noticed a prevalence for making them more like rockets with extra-large fins than actual planes by many, it's true. Probably because the word has not yet spread that wings actually do something useful in stock aero now.

Actually, I think that's a product of the physics.

Wings now create a lot more lift than they used to and the drag hurts you more around Mach 1. End result: Less wings.

Best,

-Slashy

[EladDv]

actually i have an SSTO (46 mT to 75x75) which only worked when i quadrupled my wing count/lift. it shows that there is a balance to be found

[SkyRender]

Actually, I think that's a product of the physics.

Wings now create a lot more lift than they used to and the drag hurts you more around Mach 1. End result: Less wings.

Or to put it another way, it demands a new kind of creativity with spaceplane design: functional minimalism. Personally, I've always found those spaceplanes built up with a billion wings as some sort of artsy shell to be ugly. They fly now as they would in real life: horribly. Just because they look like something out of a sci-fi series or film doesn't mean they're in any way, shape or form practical. Usually just the opposite.

[landfish2]

Best looking design I've seen so far with 1.0.2, the question being what are the actual performance specs?

it can bring 4 tons of cargo (either the crew cabin or a probe) to 80x80km with about 300m/s left. Really easy to orbit (no heat issues and uses the old ascent path) and flies very well at lower speeds as well, glides at about 50m/s

here is the craft file for any interested in seeing what it takes for an exotic foodstuff to survive in the age of the hotdog https://mega.co.nz/#!XUshlKBS!939iKbmtIHw0xKyPzk1c2xhPUfiEaiEfdLLs_eUtVHM

bonus image:

Edited May 2, 2015 by landfish2

[SkyRender]

No offense, landfish, but that looks like a 1980s sci-fi movie prop more than it does like a proper plane. Why would you encase your fuselage with superfluous wings? Why not just use a more aerodynamic fuselage?

[allmhuran]

You certainly don't have to go with tiny wings:

[landfish2]

No offense, landfish, but that looks like a 1980s sci-fi movie prop more than it does like a proper plane. Why would you encase your fuselage with superfluous wings? Why not just use a more aerodynamic fuselage?

to answer your somewhat rhetorical question - because I think it looks cool and I like that.

Edited May 2, 2015 by landfish2

[Robotengineer]

No offense, landfish, but that looks like a 1980s sci-fi movie prop more than it does like a proper plane. Why would you encase your fuselage with superfluous wings? Why not just use a more aerodynamic fuselage?

I think the people complaining want their designs to be able to look like a F-117 Nighthawk and still be an SSTO. Just not going to happen.

[SkyRender]

to answer your somewhat rhetorical question - because I think it looks cool and I like that.

Okay. So that raises my second question: why do you expect "cool"-looking craft that are not aerodynamically sound to fly well? The 1980s sci-fi spacecraft designs that you appear to be mimicking don't fly very well. It doesn't make sense to complain that something which would fly poorly in real life also flies poorly in a simulation.

[malkuth]

No offense, landfish, but that looks like a 1980s sci-fi movie prop more than it does like a proper plane. Why would you encase your fuselage with superfluous wings? Why not just use a more aerodynamic fuselage?

I think it looks very similar to the VentureStar that was canceled in 2001. Not exactly but kinda close.

[BudgetHedgehog]

why do you expect "cool"-looking craft that are not aerodynamically sound to fly well? The 1980s sci-fi spacecraft designs that you appear to be mimicking don't fly very well. It doesn't make sense to complain that something which would fly poorly in real life also flies poorly in a simulation.

But.. landfish's plane does fly well in KSP.. gets to orbit with about 300m/s ÃŽâ€V left while carrying 4 tons cargo.

[Spuds]

Hmm...

Preliminary testing on my part appears to show that at lower altitudes, drag has increased, while at higher altitudes, you can gain speed faster. I used an Aeris 3A with a turbojet for these tests:

Max speed @1000m - 370 m/s

Max speed @12000m - 1200 m/s (before stuff began to blow up)

Looks like you now need more thrust lower in the atmosphere to overcome that initial drag. Seems realistic enough, although older designs may be (and probably are) broken.

[SkyRender]

But.. landfish's plane does fly well in KSP.. gets to orbit with about 300m/s ÃŽâ€V left while carrying 4 tons cargo.

And if he cut the superfluous wings off, it'd probably get there with 450m/s left instead.

[Brotoro]

And if he cut the superfluous wings off, it'd probably get there with 450m/s left instead.

Nothing wrong with paying a price for coolness.

[SkyRender]

Nothing wrong with paying a price for coolness.

If that's a price you're willing to pay, indeed. There does seem to be a general lack of appreciation for just how much you pay for having a "cool" spacecraft design that's less practical in this thread, however...

[BudgetHedgehog]

If that's a price you're willing to pay, indeed.

I'd say 150 m/s is a fair price for the Rule Of Cool.

[Tex_NL]

How 'bout this beauty? I rebuild my S3 Shamrock.

[GoSlash27]

actually i have an SSTO (46 mT to 75x75) which only worked when i quadrupled my wing count/lift. it shows that there is a balance to be found

What was your ratio of lift coefficient to total mass? I'm working in the 1:4 range right now with decent results.

Best,

-Slashy

[Radam]

What was your ratio of lift coefficient to total mass? I'm working in the 1:4 range right now with decent results.

Best,

-Slashy

Where do you get your lift to mass ratios? Directly from part coefficients?

[GoSlash27]

Where do you get your lift to mass ratios? Directly from part coefficients?

Aye.

It's the aggregate of the lift coefficients of the wing panels divided by the total mass.

Best,

-Slashy

[Radam]

Lol, I add a random pair of wings to my design and suddenly im breaking the sound barrier at sea level.

[EladDv]

135.34/300 = 0.451133333 so about 0.45. of you take half of the large wings you get somewhere close to 1/4 i will test it tomorrow BUT if you want to test it here is the file. (contains a dunan base module which weighs 46.0 mT)

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[Alias72]

Does this look like a sausage guys?

I'm not sure.

[regex]

Does this look like a sausage guys?

http://i1370.photobucket.com/albums/ag251/alexandercampbell1/screenshot0_zpswusnalhq.png

I'm not sure.

If you're not adding useless panels to box out your spaceplane it's a sausage.

[Frostiken]

I think one issue with aircraft is that it seems thrust is proportional to altitude.

In real life, higher altitude = less drag. Less drag = faster speed. Faster speed = more air to the engines. Aircraft at high altitudes fly faster and farther than aircraft at low altitudes.

In KSP, higher altitudes seem to make your engines produce less thrust, and I have no idea why. With just two normal jet engines and one air scoop, I can't break 300m/s at 7-8k, and I actually start losing thrust. I seem to be exactly as limited in airspeed at 400m as I am at 4000m. I can't even break 300m/s if I nose down at high altitude and apply maximum thrust.